Magistrate Judge Recommends Not Dismissing Prosecution of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan for Allegedly Interfering with Immigration Arrest
From yesterday’s report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph (E.D. Wisc.) in U.S. v. Dugan:
The indictment charges as follows:
[Count One:] On or about April 18, 2025, Dugan knowingly concealed E.F.R., a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued under the provisions of the law of the United States, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of E.F.R., after notice and knowledge of the fact that a warrant and process had been issued for the apprehension of E.F.R., in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071[.]
[Count Two:] On or about April 18, 2025, Dugan did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before a department and agency of the United States, namely the administrative arrest of E.F.R. for purposes of removal proceedings conducted by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by committing affirmative acts to assist E.F.R. to evade arrest, including:
- confronting members of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Task Force and falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.;
- upon learning that they had an administrative warrant for E.F.R.’s arrest, directing all identified members of the ICE Task Force to leave the location of the planned arrest (a public hallway outside of Courtroom 615 of the Milwaukee County Courthouse) and go to the Chief Judge’s office;
- addressing E.F.R.’s Milwaukee County Circuit Court criminal case off the record while ICE Task Force members were in the Chief Judge’s office;
- directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door; and
- advising E.F.R.’s counsel that E.F.R. could appear by “Zoom” for his next court date
[i]n violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505….
Dugan sought to dismiss the indictment, on the grounds that her actions were protected by judicial immunity; the Magistrate Judge went through a long analysis of the precedents on judicial immunity (dating back to 1607), and summarized it thus:
In the civil context, it is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts. While it is not always crystal clear what constitutes a “j
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
